Except that this is really only technically correct: 27 Super Bowls were won by a quarterback selected in the first round of the draft, and 24 more weren't. Even without Brady's five Super Bowl wins, 19 out of 51 is not such a small sample so as to be irrelevant. Perhaps as significant: Sixteen Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks were drafted in the first round, while fifteen Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks were not.

My problem therefore with arguments for selecting a quarterback early is this: People argue on the basis of a stat that points in the direction of 51%, and then refuse to acknowledge every other pertinent piece of data.

Certainly you believe that all Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks were surrounded by one of the best teams in the league in any given year, don't you? Therefore you have to conclude that there's a whole lot a franchise needs to do right so that they can eventually win a Super Bowl, whether their quarterback is the most important player on the team or not.

I don't think I would care about QB statistics, in this setting, pre 2004.

Passing game has changed dramatically in the last 15 years.

I think I would stack up playoff QB's and wins starting at that point to today.

Quarterbacking statistics have nothing to do with this.

You're not trying to argue that guys like Joe Montana or Brett Favre were insignificant parts on their respective teams during their Super Bowl-winning seasons, are you?

There was a time when quarterbacking was de-emphasized by the league in general, but for as long as there has been a forward pass, there has been a huge advantage in having an effective quarterback. Even so, having a quarterback has never been the only thing.

You're not trying to argue that guys like Joe Montana or Brett Favre were insignificant parts on their respective teams during their Super Bowl-winning seasons, are you?

There was a time when quarterbacking was de-emphasized by the league in general, but for as long as there has been a forward pass, there has been a huge advantage in having an effective quarterback. Even so, having a quarterback has never been the only thing.

No, I am saying that significant rule changes involving the passing game severely changed the dynamics of Offenses in the NFL and positional value has sharply ticked upward in result.

I don't think I really care too much about QB value in 1994 when things were much different in 1994.

No, I am saying that significant rule changes involving the passing game severely changed the dynamics of Offenses in the NFL and positional value has sharply ticked upward in result.

I don't think I really care too much about QB value in 1994 when things were much different in 1994.

It seems like those rule changes made legacy quarterbacks arguably morevaluable, seeing as they had to throw into tighter windows and had less protection in the pocket. The argument you just tried to make against those older statistics is the same argument people use in favor of Joe Montana when arguing that he is the Greatest Quarterback of All Time over Tom Brady.

Just curious, How many of the "1st Rd QB's won a Super Bowl for the Team that Drafted Them?

Also curious about this... of the qb's who won more than one superbowl, how many of those were drafted in the first?

• 33 out 51 Super Bowls were won by a team starting a quarterback they drafted. (Add 4 to that number if you believe that John Elway and Eli Manning should be considered as players drafted by the teams for which they won a Super Bowl, although they refused to play for the teams that held their exclusive signing rights.) 16 of those 33 wins involved a quarterback drafted in the first round. Nine of those other 18 wins were by Joe Montana and Tom Brady.

• 11 quarterbacks have won multiple Super Bowls. Seven of the 11 were drafted in the first round. Only six of those seven won two or more Super Bowls for the same team.

61 years passed since Johnny U was drafted (the first SB winner ever drafted). From that point on, 130 quarterbacks were drafted in the first round. Some years there are no quarterbacks selected in the first round. On average, 2.13 QBs have been drafted in the first round per year. Over the past ten years, that average rose to 2.4 QBs per year. It has not served them well. Only 1 QB taken in the past ten drafts have won a Superbowl. 28 QBs were taken in the preceding the ten years, and 4 of those won a Superbowl.

It seems like those rule changes made legacy quarterbacks arguably morevaluable, seeing as they had to throw into tighter windows and had less protection in the pocket. The argument you just tried to make against those older statistics is the same argument people use in favor of Joe Montana when arguing that he is the Greatest Quarterback of All Time over Tom Brady.

No, that's not what I am saying. Although I will say yes, someone like Montana and what he racked up is nore impressive compared to what QBs rack up now.

I'm not making any argument against the older QB's. I am saying to gain a good perspective to charting the QB stomping grounds now, in terms of QB value and Super Bowl wins I wouldn't use pre 2004 data in my study. The rule changes changed a lot about importance of the position and the value they hold.

The point I want to make plainly clear. If you believe drafting a QB in the first round is a panacea for winning in the NFL, then you are deluding yourself. The odds are very much against it.

You have to pay to play, but it involves a tremendous amount of luck. 13 out of 14 QBs taken in the first round do not win multiple Superbowls.

I believe something like only 24 or 25 first round QBs have ever won a Superbowl. That is 1 Superbowl QB out of every 5.2 first round taken. On average, every 5 years about 2 Superbowl winners are drafted. It is extremely rare, and difficult to find a QB of that stature.

I should have picked different stat. Seeing Gannon with the record or 10 300+ games in a season just makes me said.

A lot of those guys you listed never even played in a Super Bowl, much less won one. There's more to being able to compete in the NFL than just to have a quarterback that can chuck the ball for big yardage. It has continued to be the case that everything needs to line up: Quality of offensive line pass blocking, quality receiving targets, scheme, and game flow all determine whether a quarterback has to throw the ball enough to reach 300 yards in a game.

I didn't say anything about Super Bowls. Liquid said the rule changes changed offenses. I assumed he meant, turned it into a passing league. I suggest it was already a passing league and the rule changes were to preserve it since the defensive players have gotten so devastating to the offensive talent. Just my opinion.

-facts are important to form a solid opinion. Phatal and E, I want to thank you for great research and analysis. I am sure we will see an article in the KC papers or one of the fan websites about just how hard it is to draft a SB QB. Well done!

-facts are important to form a solid opinion. Phatal and E, I want to thank you for great research and analysis. I am sure we will see an article in the KC papers or one of the fan websites about just how hard it is to draft a SB QB. Well done!

w

Yes, they tend to follow up on some of what we write in here.

Seth Keysor @RealMNchiefsfan on Twitter is a pretty good analyst to follow. He is doing a great job on analyzing players on the team, and on the upcoming draft. It is hard to translate talent on the college level to the pros.

Terez Paylor is a credit to the Star. He is definitely worth following, and posts links on Twitter. Mellinger is a good writer. The Topeka paper lost a good writer in Herbe Teope, who transferred his talents to New Orleans. His replacement at Chiefs Digest, Matt Derrick, is a good guy to follow.

Matt Connor got promoted to the top position at ArrowheadAddict,com. He is also on Twitter. There are a lot of writers for the Chiefs now, and some are doing a great job.

They all steal from each other. I don't think Adam Teicher would be employed if not for being able to recycle. He has taken it to a new level.

Joel Thorman writes a lot of pieces on the Chiefs. Ryan Tracey does a good job on podcasts. I am going to be missing some people, but there are lots of people who do great local work on the Chiefs. It is a far cry from the days of Carl Peterson, where the news was controlled like the Russians did under the Soviet system.

-facts are important to form a solid opinion. Phatal and E, I want to thank you for great research and analysis. I am sure we will see an article in the KC papers or one of the fan websites about just how hard it is to draft a SB QB. Well done!

I should have picked different stat. Seeing Gannon with the record or 10 300+ games in a season just makes me said.

I don't know if singular games prove that it was a passing league.

Just doing a quick search starting at 80 and going to 85 their was on the average only 2 to 3 guys that attempted over 600 passes in a season. Only 2 to 3 guys a year hit the 4000 yards in a season.

I thought their would be some progression starting in 90 but the same holds true from 90 to 95. 2 to 3 a year attempted over 600 passes and a the same amount for 4000 yard passes.

Don't have the time to see where it shifted but I looked at the last 2 years in those same categories for 2015 and 16. Both years had 6 guys that attempted over 600 passes and several more within the 580 to 600 range. 4000 yard passers were at 10 and 12.

Those numbers would at least suggest that its more of a passing league now as the number of 600 passing attempts doubled and the 4000 yards passing in a season more than doubled.

The biggest change in the passing game is the actual distance the ball travels. The WO used to run a deep or intermediate pattern, and catch a pass. The running back was used to run the ball. There was sort of a separation. Now, running backs, and wide outs are almost indistinguishable. Running backs run wheel routes, but more often receive passes that are glorified hand offs. A receiver cuts off patterns more often, and takes the ball directly from the QB more often.